What is Wales? - The Higgitt Question revisited

This is in part a response to a response by Adam Higgitt to my original post a few weeks ago and a further expansion of the wider underlying issues.

Is Wales a nation, a region or an imagined community?

There's a hierarchy of human organisation that's naturally fallen into place for whatever reason. From the bottom-up, we have : individuals, families, communities, towns/cities, local authorities, regions/federal states, nations, "extended national/cultural families", continents/supranational organisations and a global community. To any Welsh nationalist, Wales is/should be explicitly a nation in this hierarchy, yet Wales remains/is treated as a region of the UK - albeit with clearly defined responsibilities devolved from the centre.

I don't want to get bogged down too much in the semantics of nationhood and identity. There's a civic Welshness, a civic Englishness, a civic Britishness and we are all Europeans, humans and members of the smaller communities in which we live.

I don't think there needs to be anything "special" about the Welsh to want full statehood. "Special" - in the wrong environment and context - can easily be fostered to become "better than" and "superior". All that there needs to be is a Welsh civic identity and a desire - by the majority - to have that identity fully expressed and recognised internationally as an equal to any other nationality – with the same voice, privileges and responsibilities.

I also, believe it or not, have a sense of Britishness (I'm sure other nationalists do as well) – a sense of "kinship" or "extended family" that might be equally applicable to the Nordic nations. In a UK context, it can be applied to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the Commonwealth. Also, they show that you don't need a political union to remain "part of the family".

When I, as a nationalist, look at voting patterns for example, it's always from a national perspective and as a national dynamic - never as a region. Comparable to England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or any other nation as a whole (and as an equal) but not one of the regions of England.

Is there a civic "north east England-ness" in the same way as there is for Wales, England, the UK etc? Are comparisons between a region of a nation and a nation ever fully valid? Wales may share a lot with the north east of England, demographically, economically and psephologically but I'm sure there are other regions in Europe - and elsewhere - where Wales is equally comparable. For example : Wallonia, Silesia and Brandenburg. There are also several dozen full nation states Wales can be compared to.

Wales also has it's own "regions" – the north west of Wales isn't comparable to the south east in many ways but they share a civic identity, a cultural expression of it (via sport etc.), a contiguous territorial identity, a devolved national government and a common culture.

Does it do Wales any favours to be obsessed with the neighbours gardens while ignoring the rest of the street or the wider neighbourhood? Is Wales stuck in a British bubble?

Stretching the British constitution to breaking point

One of the UK constitution's strengths is that it has a fair bit of slack and hasn't been rigidly set down US-style. One of its weaknesses, is that compromises have the potential to leave the constitution in a tangled mess, or store problems for the future inadvertently. The asymmetrical nature of devolution is an example as is the complete ignorance of English national feeling.

The UK constitution has snapped before – in Ireland - for a multitude of reasons, none of which really apply to modern Wales, Scotland or England. What I fear, is that we are heading for a similar situation in the next 10 or 20 years. Tensions between the constituent nations of the UK originating from constitutional policies that were good at the time but no longer work or lose public support (i.e Barnett formula). The constitution could then be stretched so far (i.e. Independence-lite in Scotland) that it is effectively useless at holding the core together - like a rubber band that's lost its elasticity.

If there are moves to codify or solidify the UK's constitution, then it'll lose it's flexibility that's vital to make the government and legal system (in EnglandandWales at least) function properly. If nothing is done, then the tensions placed on it - for example the English Question or the (theoretical) repatriation of powers from the devolved nations to Westminster - could cause it to snap once again.

Independence for the UK nations is just one solution or possible outcome but not necessarily the "must have" solution.

Uti possidetis juris, sovereignty and devolution

Regarding my comment on a separate Welsh body of law – it's already happened. It very much "is" instead of "ought to". The Welsh Assembly has passed measures (and will in future pass Acts) that have changed - in Wales - the way health and social services are delivered, the planning system, laws governing the Welsh language, education, housing, the Welsh approach to the environment et al. The Welsh border is locked in legally and there is now a form of Welsh sovereignty. If these laws (and future ones) are to be enforced properly in the future it will require - with some inevitability - a separate legal jurisdiction to England.

Cross-border cooperation in its most basic sense, will have to be on the basis on two nations, not one EnglandandWales clump or some sort of cross-border "super region".

I gave environmental policy and government responses to climate change as an example where there are, or will be, different priorities between Wales and England. Responding to climate change isn't as simple as reducing carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases – it means whole scale change in public attitudes and behaviour, using resources more effectively and physically preparing for the impacts (i.e. Flood protection, civil defence, land management).

It can easily be accommodated by devolution, but in my opinion, with more powers devolved away from the centre, this makes a full, unitary, political union more redundant and restrictive - not more useful. It creates more completely avoidable tensions between differing and bickering layers of government. Half measures in areas such as energy policy and natural resources like water - especially when they are key parts of the Welsh economy - isn't a healthy situation, and are historical sore points.

Adam Higgitt is absolutely right that there can be policy/constitutional adjustment to reflect a multitude of different "local factors" , instead of a black and white choice between an over centralised British state and an over centralised Wales. There are plenty of examples around the world that do this without compromising on sovereignty or civic/territorial integrity - even in small nations i.e. the Swiss cantons, the Belgian communities or even the European Union itself.

My personal belief,  is that sovereignty resides with the individual and its political and governmental manifestations should get weaker with every step up the hierarchy. I certainly don't believe devolution has to stop at the Welsh level. I think Adam Higgitt and nationalists share an lot in common with regard how the constitution and sovereignty - in all its forms - can be perfected. We just have slightly differing ideas about where "Wales" would fit in - if it should fit in to it at all.

Any attempt to split Wales up, as a territorial contiguous nation, will be seen by nationalists as partition. That's not something the UK has had a good historical track record in.

Wales in Europe

Perfectly valid points are often raised about Wales' potential relationship with the European Union and whether Wales would cede sovereignty from one union to another. Is it a case of better the devil you know?

The EU is a very different beast to the UK. It has strength in numbers - yet doesn't massively infringe on individual national sovereignty thanks in part to a very weak civic European identity. Although there can be no doubt that it does exert a "control".

It has all the benefits of political union : freedom of movement, capital and trade for example that we currently enjoy in the UK in addition to currency union for the Eurozone.

The EU is also very good for smaller exporting nations (of which Wales is one) and small nations in general who've benefited a great deal from it, with many becoming very influential in European decision making, not to mention the rolling 6-month presidency of the European Council – dare I say it a "flotilla effect".

From a nationalist perspective, the UK is acting as a middle man, getting in between Wales and the EU. Why does Wales  have to be dragged along with the ebb and flow of Britain's fractious relationship with the EU? Influenced and dominated (by sheer weight of numbers) by eurosceptic English and British nationalism? Is that in Wales' best interests in the long term? I don't think it is.

Wales has inherent disadvantages being a "region" instead of a full member state.  Wales has fewer MEP's (4) than it would as an independent EU member (~8-12). Wales has no EU Commissioner, no member of the EU Council and plays no role in the big decisions. Instead Wales' role is relegated to regional groupings, while matters vital (or in some cases exclusive since devolution) to Wales' interests - like the CAP and Objective One - are done through the UK on our behalf. Why?

Smaller nations in Europe are no longer the play thing of the traditional great European powers (England [by extension the UK], Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Russia) that change hands depending on power politics. The EU has brought a stability and certainty for smaller countries that protects their sovereignty and treats them as equals.

It's a Europe of independent and sovereign nation states, not regions or any sort of half-way house.

Killing Wales through kindness

There is a certain logic to wealthier areas subsidising straggling areas. This happens within Wales to a certain extent via the Welsh Government's redistribution of locally-raised taxes. The question is whether - on the larger macroeconomic scale - this actually doing more harm to the economies of  straggling areas than good, and if this approach is only managing a decline than actually giving these areas an economic boost.

Wales has near Soviet-levels of public expenditure as a percentage of GDP by virtue of being a straggling area in a wealthy UK - propped up to a certain extent by big "UK" spends. This doesn't scream like an invitation to inward investors or somewhere to inspire confidence in entrepreneurs. As Wales becomes an ever smaller proportion of the UK's population , the pressures to replace the Barnett Formula could see the subvention heading from Westminster shrink.

Within Wales, the gap between the East and West is large, but it is in fact narrowing - thanks in part to sluggish growth in East Wales compared to the rest of the UK. Wales also has some unique problems in closing this gap compared to North and South England. West Wales is mostly rural and sparsely populated, with higher than average jobs in the public sector. The North of England can at least still rely on big centres of employment, and global cities like Birmingham and Manchester, to be drivers of the kind of growth that keeps their heads above water - or at least respectable in terms of GVA per capita.

UK economic policy backs winners at the expense of losers. UK social policy is perhaps the opposite.

The UK does have more than one global city. The Globalisation and World Cities Research Network lists London (Alpha), Birmingham, Manchester (Beta) Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Belfast, Southampton (Gamma). Notice something about the list? Practically every single capital of a European nation is on the extended list. There's a big difference between England and Wales right there, and a massive one in terms of the economy.

Capital follows power and influence – the agglomeration effect. If Wales can use its national status to its advantage, why shouldn't we? If Wales really wants to follow an English examplem then Wales should reconsider the role of cities in economic development instead of trying to push water uphill.

There's no question that Wales need a more dynamic, more ambitious private sector and that there are endemic weaknesses within the Welsh economy that can be equally applicable to regions of England or in Europe (NE England and Brandenburg for example). Solving this problem doesn't necessarily mean "becoming more like England". I would like to think that Wales can adopt an approach that compensates for the lack of agglomeration, and re-balances the relationship between the public and private sector, without the "power struggle" between them that dogs "British" and English politics. My point about the Welsh middle/professional classes having a much bigger vested interest in the public sector is relevant to this.

In many respects, this will need full macroeconomic powers of an independent state, or at the very least a significant shift in economic sovereignty down to Wales from Westminster. Edwina Hart can tinker around the edges, but monetary/fiscal policy, taxation and things like welfare and employment laws play a much bigger role in the success and failures of the economy and individual businesses than grants and fast broadband.

Imagine having the most overbearing parents possible while living at home in your 40's. Wales is Timothy Lumsden from "Sorry".

Why culture matters

My comments on things like sport and culture were purely observations, but I don't think that makes them any less relevant to the "uniqueness" of Wales. Things like sport and the arts shape and define a nation and its identity. To ignore it would be to ignore the essence of Wales itself. It's not the most important thing on the list in terms of warranting independence, but it does provide the foundation for a national civic identity that - in nationalist opinion - underpins independence. It's our voice and deserves to be heard on the World stage as an equal.

The nonconformist issue of course is irrelevant now. It's important historically because the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales acknowledged that there was a key difference between England and Wales as nations. It applied explicitly to a territory and nation of "Wales" and was controversial in doing so. Again, little things like this underpin a civic Welsh national identity and a uniquely "Welsh way of doing things".

It's agreed that the Welsh language is an important difference between Wales and England, Adam agreed that Wales should have custodianship of it. From a somewhat self-preservationary viewpoint, would Welsh speakers feel more comfortable being a 20-25% minority in 3million or less than (and ever shrinking) 1% of 60million+? Who can be heard effectively? Who can be pushed around more easily?

Equally, although English language is used as a medium, is there any reason why the English language culture of Wales - with its own idiosyncrasies - shouldn't belong to Wales either? Part of the reason Wales has such a weak media is that, in English-language culture, we've often looked east (or in some respects forced to look east) instead of building up our own version and providing a Welsh twang and a Welsh viewpoint to the Anglosphere. This is slowly changing with regards television and on the internet though.